Video: Bush warns of World War III if Iran gets the bomb

posted at 1:10 pm on October 17, 2007 by Allahpundit

The red font is out at Drudge and the left will be wetting itself over it for the rest of the day and long into the night, but there’s nothing here that isn’t self-evident. Once a state sponsor of terror, whose leading “pragmatist” has already run the calculus of a nuclear exchange with Israel, has the bomb then terrorists have it too and all bets on “containment” are off. The left has run its own calculus and concluded that nothing but nothing would be more nightmarish than another round of Cheney’s Strangelovean neocon adventurism, for which Bush’s comments here must surely be a pretext. It’s not that they want Iran to have the bomb; it’s that if it’s a choice between that and the catastrophic risk it entails versus an attack ordered by a Republican president, well, they’ll take their chances with ol’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The clip picks up with Bush having just answered a question about Putin’s latest apologia for Iran’s nuke program. And speaking of nukes, did Syria’s ambassador to the UN let slip a little secret? They’re formally denying it now and it seems odd to me that the ambassador would cop to it with Israelis present. It won’t endear him to the UN either, since its crackerjack nuclear watchdog — the one that’s watching Iran, mind you — apparently overlooked the Syrian facility entirely (as did U.S. intel, for that matter). I’m skeptical — which isn’t to say I doubt that it was a nascent nuke reactor. The target must have been awfully important for them to risk an incursion with rhetoric like this being batted about beforehand.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I’m still unclear why, during the conference, Bush refused to comment on the Israeli air strike. He refused to even give an opinion on the attack in 81 on the Iraqi facility, which was a smart move, but I still don’t understand his hesitation.

I disagree. They do want Iran to have the bomb to counterbalance the Israeli threat to world peace. Remember, most liberals fondly recall the days of the Soviet Union when American imperialism/adventurism was contained or at least had the potential to be.

During the press conference President Bush also joked that he would dissolve congress and continue being President after January 2009, similar to what Putin is planning to do. At that point I could hear the faint sound of conspiracy theorist heads exploding all across the country.

I have a cynical take on their incompetence with North Korea allowing them to get nukes naively….they did it on purpose(Machevellian style), because of a naive beleif that all nations have the right to nukes and to keep america from becoming imperialist. see some Chomsky writings on the subject and the whole nuke freeze debate…

The clip picks up with Bush having just answered a question about Putin’s latest apologia for Iran’s nuke program. And speaking of nukes, did Syria’s ambassador to the UN let slip a little secret? They’re formally denying it now and it seems odd to me that the ambassador would cop to it with Israelis present. It won’t endear him to the UN either, since its crackerjack nuclear watchdog — the one that’s watching Iran, mind you — apparently overlooked the Syrian facility entirely (as did U.S. intel for that matter). I’m skeptical — which isn’t to say I doubt that it was a nascent nuke reactor. The target must have been awfully important for them to risk an incursion with rhetoric like this being batted about beforehand.

According to some of the reports about the September 6 raid, there was quite a bit of intel being shared between the US and Israel, which suggests that the US did know about what was going on in Syria, but let Israel take the lead (Syria is in Israel’s backyard after all).

However, you’re quite right that the IAEA completely missed the Syrian facilities, just like they did with the Libyian nuke plans.

Because things are complicated and our CIA is unreliable and there is always the law of unintended consequences, I am conflicted between Ike’s advice and Niccolo’s advice. I do know that any middle ground between the two would be most unwise.
*
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.
*
Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that any injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.
– Niccolo Machiavelli

there was quite a bit of intel being shared between the US and Israel, which suggests that the US did know about what was going on in Syria, but let Israel take the lead (Syria is in Israel’s backyard after all).

lawhawk,

I don’t think the US had much of a choice here. Israel presented their case to the US and provided their intel. Israel was going to strike that facility with or without US approval. Just like Iraq in 81. But of course, PM Begin had waaaay more huevos than Olmert.

According to some of the reports about the September 6 raid, there was quite a bit of intel being shared between the US and Israel, which suggests that the US did know about what was going on in Syria, but let Israel take the lead (Syria is in Israel’s backyard after all).

However, you’re quite right that the IAEA completely missed the Syrian facilities, just like they did with the Libyian nuke plans.

It took the US sponsored PSI to deal with that.

lawhawk on October 17, 2007 at 1:23 PM

The United States Navy admitted to showing the Israeli Air Force how to penetrate the Russian SAM defenses, I believe that is considerable more than some sharing of Intel. It means that the United States Government took an active part in the Israeli actions.

I saw a Who Would Jesus Bomb? bumper sticker on a car belonging to my sister’s freind. I told my sister that it really made me think, and that I had concluded that I couldn’t be certain, but He probably would bomb the enemies of Israel.

During the press conference President Bush also joked that he would dissolve congress and continue being President after January 2009, similar to what Putin is planning to do. At that point I could hear the faint sound of conspiracy theorist heads exploding all across the country.

Complete7 on October 17, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Great hearing you have there! I slithered over to see what the DUmmies were saying. Half of them think it was a “slip” and he really intends to stay. And they add that if “he even attempts something like that, he is fair game.” (Say the previous sentence with a righteous nutroot crazy voice.) Every time I go over there, I lose IQ points!

It’s not that they want Iran to have the bomb; it’s that if it’s a choice between that and the catastrophic risk it entails versus an attack ordered by a Republican president, well, they’ll take their chances with ol’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But don’t we have to take our chances with Mahmoud? After all, the doctrine of pre-emptive war has been proven a spectacular failure. How could we possibly attack Iran unless they attacked someone first?

Now that’s a statement to reckon with!!! Even Putin in the throes of his megalomania wouldn’t be stupid enough to support a nuclear war!!! Would he? Bush would be wise to avoid any mention of war with anyone, for any reason at any time in any place and go quietly into that good night when his time is up.( and stay there!)

We are already in the middle of WWIII. It’s called the worl wide war on terror. The problem is that the US is the only country that has any thing to lose. EVERYONE wants to see the last super-power to be beaten by the Islamofascists.

We are already in the middle of WWIII. It’s called the worl wide war on terror. The problem is that the US is the only country that has any thing to lose. EVERYONE wants to see the last super-power to be beaten by the Islamofascists.

Iran has attacked us, we’ve been in a state of War with them since 1979 when they declared war on us and attacked american soil. Plus they use their puppet army, hezzbollah, to attack us often over the years.

Iran has attacked us, we’ve been in a state of War with them since 1979 when they declared war on us and attacked american soil. Plus they use their puppet army, hezzbollah, to attack us often over the years.

jp on October 17, 2007 at 3:38 PM

The problem is that the defeatocrats and the hate America first crowd see this all as justified retribution for American imperialism. For them no attack including a nuclear attack here in the continental United States would justify any American response.

in addition to them, there is the fringe/paranoid RP/lew rockwell crowd. Some of which voted for Bush and are evangelical Christians entertaining that view.

the “offensive war” and “pre-emptive war” framing has been twisted to a dangerous degree. People beleive countries like Iran and Iraq never attacked the US and we weren’t “Just” in taking down Saddam because of it. Which is NOT what they meant by pre-emptive, all Bush ever meant was that we had to stop them from getting a nukes and then giving to terrorist, which gives them plausible deniability on world stage. We’ve always been “Just” and within our rights to attack Iraq or Iran now, they’ve been in a state of war with us for decades and have attacked us.

But don’t we have to take our chances with Mahmoud? After all, the doctrine of pre-emptive war has been proven a spectacular failure

Yeah, as Saddam’s tanks drove the 3rd Infantry across the Euphrates and out of “Baghdadgrad” – we all knew that Uday and Qusay would inherit a mighty kindgom. The Ba’ath Party waves it’s triumphant banners high!

AQI is so successful that they have started to divert resources to ever increasing attacks on US soil, the complete domination of the Philipines, the Indian routed from Kashmir….

What threat would that be ? Do you consider the United States a threat to world peace also ? The last time I checked the Israelis were the good guys and doing all they can to keep that part of the world in check thereby keeping the peace. They are the only true democracy in the region.

The aggressors and threat to world peace have alway been the Arab states surrounding Israel, constantly proclaiming they want to drive Israel into the sea.

“Israeli threat to world peace” is something I would expect to hear in the U.N. general assembly or over at Kos, but not here.